• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama will lose in a Landslide

amazing that Obama may rose close to $1 billion.

2004 does not seem that long ago.

In that race, Bush spent $367 million and Kerry spent $326 million.

Dem-leaning outside groups spent $70 million on-air that year. GOP groups spent $40 million on-air.
 
TR1982 said:
Sorry, but I don't think incumbency compares with the advantage of having the first black nominee with a real chance at making it to the White House. That alone turned out millions.
Click to expand...

Well, we just disagree, and the numbers side with me. There is no electoral advantage that statistically rivals incumbency. Mainly because it so closely correlates to funding, and funding is what gets you elected. People forget that Obama was more than a black candidate, he was the most well-funded candidate ever to run for a political office in US history.
 
RJKarl said:
What is "sikmple" here is the fact that you can't READ or UNDERSTAND that I have not said a thing about price ocntrols or what prices "should be".

ALL 've said is the rules for speculators need to be fixed.

But YOU can't understand this and want to change things.
Click to expand...

If you're saying speculators jack up the price, then all I'm saying is quantify it. Otherwise, it's empty rhetoric, and you've made no case for why the rules "need to be fixed".

I'm not trying to change anything. You're the one advocating changing rules that would drive people out of the market and prevent them from pricing risk as they see fit.

If you don't believe the market is appropriately pricing oil, then why is it so unreasonable for me to ask ok so what is your opinion of the appropriate price of oil and from where is that opinion derived?

I'm sorry if this is too much for you.
 
TheShot said:
amazing that Obama may rose close to $1 billion.

2004 does not seem that long ago.

In that race, Bush spent $367 million and Kerry spent $326 million.

Dem-leaning outside groups spent $70 million on-air that year. GOP groups spent $40 million on-air.
Click to expand...

It doubled in 2008 and othef outside spending was increased.

Add to that the Citizens United decision and $1B is logical if not understated.

As I've said for the twenty years of wake boards, we need federal funding of all national elections. Get rid of ALL contributions and all outside money.
 
KanhojiAngre said:
If you're saying speculators jack up the price, then all I'm saying is quantify it. Otherwise, it's empty rhetoric, and you've made no case for why the rules "need to be fixed".

I'm not trying to change anything. You're the one advocating changing rules that would drive people out of the market and prevent them from pricing risk as they see fit.

If you don't believe the market is appropriately pricing oil, then why is it so unreasonable for me to ask ok so what is your opinion of the appropriate price of oil and from where is that opinion derived?

I'm sorry if this is too much for you.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry it's too much for you to use SOURCES rather than your ideological BS position. Those sources and others is where I got my position. Yours is purely ideological.

You've stated that I was for price controls when I said nothing like that. Yet you refuse to admit that you had no basis for such a charge.

There's no reason to be disagreeable just because we disagree, but you seem to want to continue such a path. Why?
 
Throw-away election for the Republicans. Anyone with a legit shot at President knows to ride out Obama and run next time. So all we have are b-listers and media whores.

Barring a catastrophe, the election was locked down when we took out Bin Laden and Obama made his speech.
 
OK well I've got somewhere to be so I'll get to my point RJ.

If oil isn't at a fair price now, it's pretty close.

Right now we're at about 95 a barrel on WTI. Brent is at 115. So if there's a speculative bubble, it sure doesn't seem like it's in WTI.

Additionally, there is a reasonable risk premium in the middle east.

Also, Canada imports more oil to the US than anyone. I suggest doing some reading on how much oil needs to be priced for that production to be economic. Same will true for shale oil, especially considering Bakken doesn't even have delivery infrastructure.

If oil falls too much, the price cuts supply dramatically because operators can't make a profit on it. They're not going to pull it out at a loss when they can wait and make a profit later. I'm not sure exactly what that number is these days...used to be (when I left for Korea last year) that it cost around 50/barrel just to get the crap produced. Then add in other costs and you tell me what an economic price is...we're not too far from it.

To go below the price that makes Athabasca profitable is to greatly constrict US supply.
 
DCDeac said:
Throw-away election for the Republicans. Anyone with a legit shot at President knows to ride out Obama and run next time. So all we have are b-listers and media whores.

Barring a catastrophe, the election was locked down when we took out Bin Laden and Obama made his speech.
Click to expand...

+1
 
KanhojiAngre said:
OK well I've got somewhere to be so I'll get to my point RJ.

If oil isn't at a fair price now, it's pretty close.

Right now we're at about 95 a barrel on WTI. Brent is at 115. So if there's a speculative bubble, it sure doesn't seem like it's in WTI.

Additionally, there is a reasonable risk premium in the middle east.

Also, Canada imports more oil to the US than anyone. I suggest doing some reading on how much oil needs to be priced for that production to be economic. Same will true for shale oil, especially considering Bakken doesn't even have delivery infrastructure.

If oil falls too much, the price cuts supply dramatically because operators can't make a profit on it. They're not going to pull it out at a loss when they can wait and make a profit later. I'm not sure exactly what that number is these days...used to be (when I left for Korea last year) that it cost around 50/barrel just to get the crap produced. Then add in other costs and you tell me what an economic price is...we're not too far from it.

To go below the price that makes Athabasca profitable is to greatly constrict US supply.
Click to expand...

Decent post. Most relevant marginal cost of production for US markets will be Alberta Oil Sands which run $65-70 per barrel. Another factor would be deepwater frontier GoM, but these are also way in excess of say, the marginal cost for OPEC which is much lower.

That said, there is little doubt that the price spikes and volatility in the 2007-2008 run-up is due mainly to speculation. Dollar devaluation and supply/demand fundamentals might contribute, but mainly rapid increase in non-commercial open interest positions on NYMEX.

That said, when you look at current situation, China/India demand, Middle East risk, rising drilling costs, and scarcity rents to boot, crude oil price might be a bit high but the days of $20 (or IMO even $40) per barrel (sustainable) are over.
 
DCDeac said:
Throw-away election for the Democrats. Anyone with a legit shot at President knows to ride out Bush and run next time. So all we have are b-listers and media whores.

Barring a catastrophe, the election was locked down when we stopped Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.
 
Does anyone think that the fact that we killed Osama will swing a lot of votes in 17 months? I highly doubt it.
 
SCDeac said:
Does anyone think that the fact that we killed Osama will swing a lot of votes in 17 months? I highly doubt it.
Click to expand...

No. It does mute the "Dems are soft on defense" cliche.
 
The incumbent doesn't need to swing votes.

The Bush election is a good comparison. You guys sound exactly like the Dems back when Kerry was running. Anybody's better than Bush, he's just the worst, obviously he'll lose, blah blah blah.

The bottom line in both situations is that the other party is going to put up a shit candidate, and the status quo will win out.

Legit Republican leaders will try to strengthen the party in Congress, then try to prevent Hillary from winning.

If I was a savvy moderate Republican I'd make sure a tea party candidate got the nomination, just so they can be outed nationally as a joke and the party can get back to normal.
 
Canada exports oil to the US, but then again how could I possibly understand the difference. You couldn't possibly be wrong.
 
DCDeac said:
The incumbent doesn't need to swing votes.

The Bush election is a good comparison. You guys sound exactly like the Dems back when Kerry was running. Anybody's better than Bush, he's just the worst, obviously he'll lose, blah blah blah.

The bottom line in both situations is that the other party is going to put up a shit candidate, and the status quo will win out.

Legit Republican leaders will try to strengthen the party in Congress, then try to prevent Hillary from winning.

If I was a savvy moderate Republican I'd make sure a tea party candidate got the nomination, just so they can be outed nationally as a joke and the party can get back to normal.
Click to expand...

You're knocking this argument out of the park. We had stunned liberals in 2004 and we'll have stunned conservatives in 2012.
 
DCDeac said:
Throw-away election for the Republicans. Anyone with a legit shot at President knows to ride out Obama and run next time. So all we have are b-listers and media whores.

Barring a catastrophe, the election was locked down when we took out Bin Laden and Obama made his speech.
Click to expand...

This.
 
DCDeac said:
The incumbent doesn't need to swing votes.

The Bush election is a good comparison. You guys sound exactly like the Dems back when Kerry was running. Anybody's better than Bush, he's just the worst, obviously he'll lose, blah blah blah.

The bottom line in both situations is that the other party is going to put up a shit candidate, and the status quo will win out.

Legit Republican leaders will try to strengthen the party in Congress, then try to prevent Hillary from winning.

If I was a savvy moderate Republican I'd make sure a tea party candidate got the nomination, just so they can be outed nationally as a joke and the party can get back to normal.
Click to expand...

Bush-Clinton election is the better comparison. Bush-Kerry election had war as the issue and not an economy in the toilet, though I seem to recall Kerry trying to say otherwise. People vote their pocketbooks. If in November you have the same economic doldrums and joblessness that you have now, Obama will be in trouble. He has pissed off those on the far left that turned out for him and pissed off those in the middle. Plus there will be a certain percentage that will not be motivated to repeat the historic opportunity they had in 2008 by voting for a black guy as President. The hope and change has turned to apathy.

Now the truth is the GOP does not have a host of very good candidates at the moment, but that doesn't mean one won't emerge and pull it off. As much as I was for Romney in 2008 and am pretty meh on him now, he absolutely has the gravitas (I know, that term is so 2000) and personality to pull it off. He does come off as Presidential. And though Rush Limbaugh, etc, are souring on him now, they'll jump behind him just as they did with McCain if he gets the nod.

I still hope that somebody better emerges for the GOP though because Obama is most definitely beatable and I want a candidate who will unite and rile up the base the most. In fact, though I don't agree with the OP, there is a much better chance that Obama will lose in a landslide than there is of the GOP nominee losing in one.
 
Who is Perot?
 
Bush the 1st was really the 3rd term of the Reagan presidency.

There was some fatigue at that point.

Not a good comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top